Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Notices 37145

Signed at Washington, D.C. on July 2, 1998.

Raymond Uhalde,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Employment and Training.

[FR Doc. 98–18224 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Dialogue on Unemployment Insurance

Reform; Notice of Public Meetings

When President Clinton signed his

1999 budget proposals, he set in motion

a reform of the Unemployment

Insurance (UI) program. On March 13,

1998, Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman

announced a ‘‘Dialogue’’ to examine the

UI program and the related Employment

Service IES) program in light of a

changing economy. The framework for

the ‘‘Dialogue’’ was set forth in the

Dialogue Paper which as been mailed to

stakeholders and other interested

parties. This paper can also be found on

the Internet at www.dol.gov. The

‘‘Dialogue’’ will allow interested parties

to comment on a broad array of

questions about the programs’

effectiveness and will take place over

the next year through several venues

and forums, i.e., stakeholders meetings,

public meetings. Major ‘‘Dialogue’’

issues for discussion include:

Individual Economic Adjustment:

How well does the UI program help

individuals unemployment workers by

providing adequate financial resources

and promoting transition to

employment? Who should receive

benefits; what kinds of reemployment

services should he provided and how

could these reemployment services be

made more effective?

Macroeconomic Stabilizer: How well

does the UI program serve as a countercyclical macroeconomic stabilizer—

does it serve to stabilize the economy

locally, regionally, nationally? How

could the program’s performance be

improved?

Insurance Concepts: How well does

the UI program operate in terms of core

insurance principles of forward funding,

risk pooling, and solvency? How well

does the program accumulate resources

for payment during periods of economic

downturn? How well does the program

operate in terms of pooling risks for

employers and States? What are the

consequences of diverging from these

insurance principles?

Financing Benefits: How should the

UI benefit financing structure work to

assure efficiency, equity and incentives?

To what extent should employer tax

rates be based on experience with

unemployment? How could employer

reporting and record keeping be

streamlined?

Financing Administration: How

should the administration of the UI and

ES programs be financed? How well

does the administrative financing

system respond to workload changes

over the business cycle? How should the

administrative financing system

encourage efficient and cost-effective

operations?

Federal-State System: How should the

Federal-State partnership work to assure

a basic national UI program that reflects

differences among the States? How can

the partnership be improved? Are any

changes needed in the division of

responsibilities, such as financing,

benefit structures, or oversight? What

should be the relationship between UI

and ES? What form should ES take in

the future?

Time and Place: Two meetings will be

held, the first on August 4, 1998 in

Seattle, Washington and the second on

August 11, 1998 in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. The Seattle meeting will

be held at the Seattle Airport Doubletree

Hotel, 18740 Pacific Highway South,

from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The

Philadelphia meeting will be held at the

Philadelphia Airport Marriott Hotel,

Arrivals Road, from 11:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m. More meetings will be held.

Agenda: Agenda topics include the

following:

(a) Opening remarks—purpose/overview

of meeting, introduction of discussion

leaders

(b) Description of Dialogue Issues

(c) Oral Testimony

(d) Open discussion of Dialogue Issues

(e) Closing remarks

Public Participation: The meeting will

be open to the public. Seating will be

available to the public on a first-come,

first-served basis. Seats will be reserved

for the media. Individuals with

disabilities should contact the Regional

Coordinators, listed below, if special

accommodations are needed.

Individuals or organizations wishing to

present oral testimony should contact

the Regional Coordinator, and those

wishing to submit written statements

should send five (5) copies to the

Regional Coordinator.

For Additional Information Contact:

Seattle Coordinators—Larry Heasty and

Bill James (206 553–7700), U.S.

Department of Labor/ETA, 1111 Third

Ave., Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101–

3213. Philadelphia Coordinators—Leo

Bull (215 596—0778), Rosemary

Williams—Raysor (215 596–1411), and

April Hunt (215 596–0789), U.S.

Department of Labor/ETA, P.O. Box

8796, Philadelphia, PA 19101

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 30th day

of June 1998.

Raymond J. Uhalde,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 98–18225 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company,

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station

(Units 1 & 2 ); Confirmatory Order

Modifying Licenses Effective

Immediately

I

Pennsylvania Power & Light

Company, (PP&L or the Licensee) is the

holder of Facility Operating Licenses

Nos. NPF–17 and NPF–22, which

authorize operation of Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2,

located in Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania.

II

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been

concerned that Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire

barrier systems installed by licensees

may not provide the level of fire

endurance intended and that licensees

that use Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers

may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. During the 1992 to 1994

time frame, the NRC staff issued Generic

Letter (GL) 92–08, ‘‘Thermo-Lag 330–1

Fire Barriers’’ and subsequent requests

for additional information that

requested licensees to submit plans and

schedules for resolving the Thermo-Lag

issue. The NRC staff has obtained and

reviewed all licensees’ corrective plans

and implementation schedules. The

staff is concerned that some licensees

may not be making adequate progress

toward resolving the plant-specific

issues, and that some implementation

schedules may be either too tenuous or

too protracted. For example, several

licensees informed the NRC staff that

their completion dates had slipped by 6

months to as much as 3 years. For plants

that have completion action scheduled

beyond 1997, the NRC staff has met

with the licensees to discuss the

progress of the licensees’ corrective

actions and the extent of licensee

management attention regarding

completion of Thermo-Lag corrective

actions.